Oilmen’s concern over emergency helicopters

[BHPS]

From the Scotsman

==================================================

Oilmen’s concern over emergency helicopters

Frank Urquhart

. .OIL workers have called for the replacement of rig-based helicopters after a series of emergency alerts.

The Super Pumas, which are the first point of escape from platforms in the North Sea, are now approaching 20 years of age. There are fears that six incidents in the past four weeks could be a sign they are past their best.

Jake Molloy, of the offshore workers union, OILC, is now calling for the helicopters to be replaced.

He said: "There are great concerns over the ageing aspect of the helicopters, which are in use at this time. The rash of alerts sends out a message that there are problems.

"No-one likes to contemplate a major accident, but it might take one for the companies to wake up to what’s going on here.

"We had the very old SL6s and they were replaced with the Super Pumas in the late 1980s - early 1990s.

"Now there are newer machines on the market, but it will take investment from the oil operators for them to be introduced. Confidence is waning and we need a new, improved fleet of helicopters."

==================================================

If they wanted new helicopters they may have had them if the oil companies hadn't kept trying to cut back on contract rates to such an extent that two companies had to merge and a third almost went out of business!!

[paco]

Somebody always seems to bring up this old chestnut of a machine being old therefore it's unsafe.

Phil

[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: paco ]</p>

[Rob_L]

Had the pleassure of looking over a Helikopter Service S61N a few years ago after a major inspection. I doubt if it was that good when it came out of the factory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[coalface]

Age has nothing to do with safety (excepting the pilot of course).

The S61n which all passengers love is the oldest of the North sea aircraft. The Pumas, which the complaints are about, are getting on now (some of them are 20 years old) but are as safe now as they were when new. The amount of maintenance which goes into them is incredible. Apart from the routine daily/weekly/monthly/hourly servicing they get, they get stripped down to the bare metal every 7000 flying hours (about every 5 years), are inspected very closely and completely rebuilt. The aircraft comes out like new.

We know every nut and bolt on them and are very comfortable about their reliability. What has changed over the years is the increased regulation and safety culture. There are more precautionary "returns to base" due to minor defects which previously the pilots may have continued with and had fixed when the aircraft finished the flight.

The Pumas probably do need replaced but not for safety reasons. They are getting heavier as all aircraft do with age and don't carry as much payload. There are aircraft becoming available which carry more payload per pound of money. The downside of new helicopters is that there is a big learning curve for the first few years and the number of precautionary "returns to base" or unserviceabilities on start up may be higher for a while compared to the older aircraft.

[Nick Lappos]

There really is a big difference between the various helicopters from a design standpoint, mostly driven by age, since the original design more or less reflects the technology available at the design date, and the rules and requirements in effect at the time.

Many key safety improvements have been instituted in the last two decades, making a big change in the ability of the design to withstand damage or failures, and therefore a big change in its overall safety.

A "new" helicopter need not be a new design, it must only meet the standards in effect when it was designed, a principle caled "grandfathering". Without grandfathering, all manufacturers would have to change their designs and re-certify them each time a rule was changed.

Regarding the FAA/CAA/JAR regulations in effect when they were designed, the S-61 was designed in 1960, the Puma family in 1974, the Super Puma in 1978, the EH-101 in 1990, and the S-92 in 2000.

There are very considerable differences between the designs of those eras, just as you can see the evolution of cars in that time period. For cars, crashworthiness, anti-lock brakes, side panel structure, interior safety, tire standards, etc all reflect the better understanding of safety engineering.

In the late 1990's the helo regs took a big jump, and required many new structural and fatigue improvements that were determined based on transport helicopter accidents. Things like Structural Flaw Tolerance, Bird Strike, Engine Turbine Burst protection, Crashworthy Fuel were all introduced between 1991 and 2000.

You can buy a brand new old design helicopter if you don't know the ins and outs!

see:

<a href="http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/CurModel?OpenFrameSet" target="_blank">http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/CurModel?OpenFrameSet</a>

for a place where the Type Data Sheet for the model lists the FAR amendment and date of that amendment, which effectively dates the level of technology of the design.

See:. .<a href="http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet" target="_blank">http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet</a>

for the historical FAR which allows the real geek to look up individual FAR paragraphs to see the growth of the safety requirements, such as Engine Turbine Burst.

[ShyTorque]

Nick,

You're quite a bit out on the date of the Puma.

It was originally designed in the 1960's. The first French Army SA-330 aircraft flew on April 15th 1965 and the first RAF HC1 variant by Westlands flew on November 25th 1970. The first commercial variant, the SA330F, obtained FAA approval in 1971.

Not that I'm a spotter, but I began my own helicopter career on that type so I have a vested interest. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]</p>

[rigid_rotor]

Nick, I'm pretty sure the first Eh101 flew in 1987 and surely the design of the s92 began a few yrs ago?

R_R

[elpirata]

now dont jump down my throat guys i am just saying and i certainly wouldnt contradict Nick Lappos especially after seeing him on Discovery Wings about the Comanche but:-

i always thought that the designator for sikorsky helicopters was related to the year of design e.g:-

S61- well it was about 1961 wasnt it?. .S76- well it was about 1976 wasnt it?. .S92- well it was about 1992 wasnt it?

or have i got the wrong end of the stick and am beating about the bush with it?

regards

[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: elpirata ]</p>

[Nick Lappos]

Shy Torque - The disagreement on dates is understandable. I was referring to the official Type Certificate data sheet which lists the date of the regulations that the aircraft was tested and approved under.

For Puma, it is 1971 to 1974, depending on the model, for Super Puma MKII it was 1978.

Rigid_Rotor - The date of the Type certificate approval basis for the EH-101 is 1990, the S-92 was desgned in the late 1990's, but it was designed to meet the future rules (which were draft at the time) so that FAR/JAR 29-45 year 2000 is its basis.

elpirata - The S-1 was Igor's first machine, and so on up the line, except that we changed the S-74 to the S-76 when we launched it back in 1976. The S-70 is the H-60 and the S-80 is the H-53E (the S-64 is the H-53A/D), the Comanche has no S number. Many S numbers were devoted to proposals that did not get launched, or were limited production (the RSRA was the S-72, the ABC was the S-69)

[ShyTorque]

A simple quiz:

Whilst searching for some data on this topic, I came across a mention of an aircraft with the following designation:

Heavy Duty Transport. .Three engines. .Rotor diam. 65ft. .Troop carrier (35). .Eighteen stretchers. .Rear cargo ramp. .Cargo loads internal or external. .Proposed versions for commercial transport and anti-submarine warfare.. .Strong Italian involvement

Designator includes the number 101.

Anyone guess what aircraft this is, complete the designator and put a date on it? The answer is quite surprising.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Shy Torque

It was the Agusta 101 which was developed as leverage to get Vertol Helicopters to approve the production of CH-47s by Agusta to sell in the European and African / Middle East areas. Once the first model flew Vertol figured it was better to have Agusta build the CH-47s and make some licensing money on each sale. The Chief Engineer was (I believe) Dr Eng. Bruno Lovera.

I worked at Agusta on a consulting contract and came across a rotorhead, which looked like a large version of a French design used on their early helicopters. Each of the offset hinges were tied together by a very stout cable which restricted individual movement of the blades I asked Dr. Lovera about it and he told me the story. He then took me out to look at the hull of one of the A-101s. It was exactly as you described. Dr. Lovera indicated that the performance was a bit lacking.

When Agusta teamed up with Westland and EHI was formed Agusta argued that the new helicopter be called the EH-101. They argued until it was a done deal. Westland was totally unaware of the existence of the original A-101.

[offshoreigor]

Actually Lu,

Rumour has it that the Name EH 101 was a 'Typo'. Apparently it was originally designated the "EHI01 (for European Helicopter Industries Model 01), which was inadvertantly publicised as the EH-101 (mistaking the "I" for a "1"), easy mistake.

Cheers, <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> OffshoreIgor <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: offshoreigor

I got my information from the Agusta EH-101 program officer at EHI Headquarters while attending a meeting with Westland in the EHI offices in London. I would think that Westland spread the rumor about the typo when they discovered the A-101 hulk at Cascina Costa in Gallarate, Italy.. . . .A bit of humor. (a very small bit)

Welcome back.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Not to distract from the original thread, but the neccesity for a 3 engine helicopter was driven by a lack of adequate powerplants in the 1960's, the advent of turbine helicopters.

The AZ-101G would probably have been as succesful as the other tri-motored abortion, the Super-Frelon. The 101 was Gnome powered; the original Frelon, Turmo IV powered; and the Israeli monstrosity Frelon was powered by T-58's.

That the three engine design survived through the mid-1980's EH-101 design phase is again a difficult technological challenge to understand. As the machine now competes with other twins, it is a little hard to justify the expense of three motors, when perhaps there might be two available today, with an adequate power margin?

Three engines doesn't just stop with installing the engine, there's a 3rd MGB input, installation, controls and instrumentation, accessories, fuel system, etc, all adding to the basic D.O.C and weight of the finished product.

One thing is for sure, the original 101 was equally as ugly as a Super Frelon (maybe more so), and I have to wonder if they didn't sell the design to the Russians in some money-making espionage double dealing - looks awful like the Mil-8 to me! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

To divert it one step more, does anyone know what a Frelon is? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ShyTorque]

Well done chaps, especially Lu who got it right immediately.

I think folks at Agusta must have slapped each other on the back when the design of the EH 101 was agreed, in design and in name; the similarity is uncanny.

I heard that the Royal Navy wanted a sonar dunking aircraft and required a continued hover following an engine failure, so three engines it was, despite all the extra complication this caused.

Frelon means "Hornet"

(I now apologise for taking this thread well off the original subject, perhaps we should start a new topic).

[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]</p>

[Nick Lappos]

Cyclic Hotline,. .There is one more penalty of the third engine that exacts a penalty for each mile flown - specific fuel consumption.

Unlike piston engines, turbines lose efficiency at part power. Each horsepower can consume much more fuel at 50% power than at 75%, about 20% more for the typical turbine. If 3 engines provide cruise power instead of two, the extra fuel needed for a given range causes more cost for the mission, and also reduces the payload that might have been carried.

This is a fundamental for turbines, not often appreciated by us pilots, who view more power as a solid virtue.

[madherb]

Cyclic Hotline - Frelon means 'hornet' in the French vernacular. It may have been an ugly beast to you, but, as the pundits say, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and the old bus has a very special place in my heart, after 6 years and 1500 hrs. of (mostly!) really enjoyable ops. At sea level, for which it was designed, the Super Frelon was the hot ship of the day - I remember an occasion when, admittedly light on fuel for a short hop, we hauled 45 construction workers plus a few odd welding machines and sundry toolboxes out of a tight site - standing room only!!

The Frelon set a world speed record on a 3km, 15/25km and 100km closed circuit in July 1963. The 6-bladed main rotor was of Sikorsky design, and the transmission system by Fiat.

All in all, a great bus, and a true aerial friend.

<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Lu Zuckerman]

Regarding the EH-101 the Italian Navy fought long and hard to get rid of the third engine. Obviously, they lost the argument.

[heedm]

Nick, I'm not aware of the full argument, but saying that the third engine is a penalty due to specific fuel consumption seems a little one-sided.

With the third engine you're given the option to run three and have the OEI performance, or run two and lower SFC. I'm not saying three engines is the way to go, just that the argument is a little more complex than what's been presented here.

[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: heedm ]</p>

[Lu Zuckerman]

The original design concept of the EH-101 was to do most of the flying on two engines and bring the third engine on line in case of a power loss on one of the operating engines or when extended hovering was required.

On an unrelated matter, when I was supervising the R&M on the EH-101 I noted to my manager that if the helicopter ever landed on the water and took off again they could suffer power loss due to ingestion of water into the fuel tank. He indicated that the helicopter would only land on water in an emergency and when it did it would be towed to safe refuge and recovered or recovered by its’ mother ship. However I do not believe there ever was a note in the maintenance manuals or operations manual to check the fuel tanks for the presence of water. If the helicopter landed because of a mechanical problem then when it was recovered it would be repaired and returned to service with 10-20 gallons of seawater in the tanks.

[Nick Lappos]

heedm,. .You are right, in fact the issues are much more than two sided!

Carrying "extra" anything is always going to mean that you carry less of some other things. It is grand to see how the marketplace values the various balances we attempt. For the user, that extra engine carries lots of advantages, but also costs more to buy, insure and operate. The EH is estimated to cost about 35% more to operate per mile than roughly comparable two engine helicopters. I'll wage that a one engine helicopter is better yet in terms of pure economics (but they are not permitted above 20,000 pounds, unless equipped with fewer than 10 seats).

All being said, more power to hover means less fuel available to go somewhere, in the inexerable laws of design.

In another thread, the Gnome equipped Wessex is lauded for its awesome hover power, and it similarly has greatly reduced range as a result.

You buy what you need, we'll build them. It works just that simply!